Table of Contents

Dynamics of Change in the Criminal Case Plea Bargaining System: New York City, 1800-1890 (ICPSR 6501)

Principal Investigator(s):
Mirsky, Chester L., New York University. School of Law;
Ortese, Edelle, New York University. School of Law

Summary:

This study analyzes the ascendancy of a single form of
dispute processing--the guilty plea--in New York City's principal
indictment court, and its connection to law enforcement, judges, and
lawyers. A major component of the study is a statistical analysis of
data presented in the Minute Book of Court of General Sessions and
maintained at the New York City Archives. A second data source is the
New York City district attorney's case files, also maintained at the
New York City Archives. Part 1, District Attorney Case File Data,
contains a sample of cases throughout the century taken from the
district attorney's files. Variables cover charge filed, method of
arrest, nature of testimony, presence of the lawyers, role of police,
private prosecutor, and magistrate, and demographic information about
the defendant and victim. Part 2, Lawyer Data, records the frequency of
the appearance of individual lawyers, the charges in the cases in which
they appeared, the lawyering activities they undertook, and the method
of case disposition. Part 3, Minute Book Data, reflects the workday of
the Court of General Sessions, including the number of cases processed
in court on any given day, the number of defendants tried, the details
of charges, joinder, witness examinations, outcome and sentence, and
the number pleading guilty. Part 4, Cases Tried Data, not only records
cases tried but also includes the top count, legal representation,
result, and sentence, and for cases pleading guilty contains the top
count charged, top count accepted, and sentence imposed. District
Attorney Reference Data, Part 5, contains cases in which copies of the
district attorney's papers were not found. These cases occurred on the
same day as cases for which copies of the district attorney's papers
were recorded. This data served as a control group for the District
Attorney Case File Data.

This study analyzes the ascendancy of a single form of
dispute processing--the guilty plea--in New York City's principal
indictment court, and its connection to law enforcement, judges, and
lawyers. A major component of the study is a statistical analysis of
data presented in the Minute Book of Court of General Sessions and
maintained at the New York City Archives. A second data source is the
New York City district attorney's case files, also maintained at the
New York City Archives. Part 1, District Attorney Case File Data,
contains a sample of cases throughout the century taken from the
district attorney's files. Variables cover charge filed, method of
arrest, nature of testimony, presence of the lawyers, role of police,
private prosecutor, and magistrate, and demographic information about
the defendant and victim. Part 2, Lawyer Data, records the frequency of
the appearance of individual lawyers, the charges in the cases in which
they appeared, the lawyering activities they undertook, and the method
of case disposition. Part 3, Minute Book Data, reflects the workday of
the Court of General Sessions, including the number of cases processed
in court on any given day, the number of defendants tried, the details
of charges, joinder, witness examinations, outcome and sentence, and
the number pleading guilty. Part 4, Cases Tried Data, not only records
cases tried but also includes the top count, legal representation,
result, and sentence, and for cases pleading guilty contains the top
count charged, top count accepted, and sentence imposed. District
Attorney Reference Data, Part 5, contains cases in which copies of the
district attorney's papers were not found. These cases occurred on the
same day as cases for which copies of the district attorney's papers
were recorded. This data served as a control group for the District
Attorney Case File Data.

Access Notes

The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public.
Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.

Study Description

Citation

Mirsky, Chester L., and Edelle Ortese. Dynamics of Change in the Criminal Case Plea Bargaining System: New York City, 1800-1890. ICPSR06501-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1993. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06501.v1

Universe:
Nineteenth-century criminal cases that originated in New
York City's Special Sessions Court and proceeded to indictment in the
Court of General Sessions.

Data Type(s):
event/transaction data and administrative records data

Methodology

Sample:
Sampling varied with each dataset. For the District
Attorney Case File Data and District Attorney Reference Data, data were
drawn from sources every fifth year, beginning in 1800 and continuing
until 1879, at 30-day intervals. For the Lawyer Data, data were sampled
every five years beginning in 1800 and continuing through 1890. For the
Minute Book Data and the Cases Tried Data, the interval used was every
ten years beginning in 1800 and continuing through 1890.

Data Source:

official records

Version(s)

Original ICPSR Release: 1996-02-26

Version History:

2006-01-12 All files were removed from dataset 11 and flagged as study-level files, so that they will accompany all downloads.

2005-11-04 On 2005-03-14 new files were added to one
or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as well
as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS portable,
and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised 2005-11-04 to
reflect these additions.

Download Statistics

This website is funded through Inter-agency agreements through the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of
the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Neither the U.S. Department of Justice nor any of its
components operate, control, are responsible for, or necessarily endorse, this website (including, without limitation,
its content, technical infrastructure, and policies, and any services or tools provided).